skinnyflyer 0 #51 January 5, 2007 QuoteIf I'm not mistaken anything over 40 per barrel and the tar sands are a viable option yes but this is a moving target as infrastructure and operating costs are very oil dependend. this is where the eroei(energyreturnonenergyinvested) comes into play. the north american/subarbia lifestyle was build on cheap oil/very high eroei over 100-1 to 30-1 but oil sands is 2-1. so the tar sands are will be like a bandaid on a severed limb not the saviour it is touted as."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #52 January 5, 2007 QuoteQuotearrogant, corrupt and incompetent socialists who don't know what an honest days work means. You've been watching C-SPAN lately, have you?? As opposed to watching Fox so we can see the neo-con capitalists get 200M$ severance packages while a small percentage of the people get the healthcare they need and homeless run teh streets? Or so we can watch the neo-cons cry like pussies about raising the min wage? Spare me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #53 January 5, 2007 >We're talking of building some nuclear reactors which would make separating the two cleaner . . . Cool! The risk and hazardous waste of nuclear plants, AND all the great pollution and CO2 from oil! You really can have it all . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 January 5, 2007 QuoteWhen will nations, all nations, quit paying executives 200M for severance and start making these corporations pay the taxes they should so we can care for our own people? When will socialists realize that it doesn't work? What's that line about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes? Guess what happens when you "make those corporations pay the taxes they should" (which is bullshit, by the way)? They move (and there goes the taxes AND the jobs), they raise their prices (there goes inflation!) or they lay off people to make the bottom line (whups, there's those jobs again!).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #55 January 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotearrogant, corrupt and incompetent socialists who don't know what an honest days work means. You've been watching C-SPAN lately, have you?? As opposed to watching Fox so we can see the neo-con capitalists get 200M$ severance packages while a small percentage of the people get the healthcare they need and homeless run teh streets? Or so we can watch the neo-cons cry like pussies about raising the min wage? Spare me. Drink some more of that Kool-aid, bro... Oh...minimum wage... fun!! Increased cost to business.... prices go up. Company finds ways to do the same things with less people - now the lowest paid folks, the ones that need the jobs the most, are laid off. Congrats on swelling the welfare rolls! That'll be an extra 3% out of your paycheck, please.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #56 January 5, 2007 QuoteActually, as you have written in the past, it's 70% for the 3 stooges. Furthermore, who's fault ws the 1.5 T under CLinton? He assumed a 45 degree incline and it took 5 years to make it turn the corner, so is that even his fault? I think not since it was obvious that his fiscla policies didn't support that kind of incline. Clinton assumed/inherited the strongest bull market in this countries history, which translated into huge increases in tax revenue... and yet he was unable to set aside a single dollar to reduce the dest. tsk, tsk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #57 January 5, 2007 >and yet he was unable to set aside a single dollar to reduce the >dest. tsk, tsk. The 'dest?' Do you mean the debt? Sorry, facts are going to get in the way of a good Clinton bash again. Attached are graphs of the deficit and resulting debt. See if you can determine which direction the debt went under Clinton and Bush. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #58 January 5, 2007 The total federal debt (w/ a "b") increased every year during Clinton's presidency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #59 January 5, 2007 >The total federal debt (w/ a "b") increased every year during >Clinton's presidency. Yes. And it increased much faster during the republican administrations that preceded him and followed him. Also, keep in mind that "debt vs GNP" is a favorite way that republicans try to minimize their spending increases; by that metric, Clinton did more than any other president in recent history to pay down the debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
